Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   How Does Republican Platform Help Middle Class?
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 166 of 440 (610951)
04-03-2011 9:26 PM
Reply to: Message 157 by marc9000
04-03-2011 6:01 PM


I have little time to discuss liberty with renters.
Then you'd have had little time to discuss liberty with Patrick Henry when he was Governor of Virginia, and to explain to him that he should have cried: "Give me liberty or give me rented accommodation!"
You'd have had little time to discuss liberty with George Washington when he rented his Valley Forge headquarters during the War of Independence, nor when he rented Mount Vernon from his half-brother's widow.
You'd have had little time to discuss liberty with Thomas Jefferson when, living in rented rooms, he wrote the Declaration of Independence.
Fortunately, it seems that they could all do quite well without your advice on that subject.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by marc9000, posted 04-03-2011 6:01 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4190 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 167 of 440 (610964)
04-04-2011 6:06 AM
Reply to: Message 165 by Theodoric
04-03-2011 8:36 PM


Obviously, these right-wing extremists believe in 2 classes, themselves (aristocrats) and the rest of us (serfs or slaves).

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002
Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969
Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by Theodoric, posted 04-03-2011 8:36 PM Theodoric has not replied

  
hooah212002
Member (Idle past 802 days)
Posts: 3193
Joined: 08-12-2009


Message 168 of 440 (610969)
04-04-2011 9:36 AM
Reply to: Message 149 by crashfrog
04-02-2011 11:19 PM


Our nation's high unemployment rate and declining wealth of the middle class is almost entirely due to a deregulated financial services sector.
I watched Inside Job last night (until this morning, it was streaming free and free to download. Looks like it needs to be purchased now) and one of the things that stuck in my mind was how much the banksters and the fed reserve championed soooo fucking hard for de-regulation because they knew what they were doing was wrong. What is even more baffling is how people can be so oblivious to what is still occurring due to de-regulation and still, as middle income folk, fight against regulation.

"What can be asserted without proof, can be dismissed without proof."-Hitch.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by crashfrog, posted 04-02-2011 11:19 PM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by Rahvin, posted 04-04-2011 11:43 AM hooah212002 has seen this message but not replied

  
Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 169 of 440 (610976)
04-04-2011 11:43 AM
Reply to: Message 168 by hooah212002
04-04-2011 9:36 AM


It's all a Big Lie. Always has been. If you can convince the public to vehemently work against their own best interest...well, then you get America.
It's the major flaw of Democracy. The opinion of the average Joe are worse than useless when discussing complicated issues like the financial sector. Middle class America on the average is not sufficiently competent to even recognize their own incompetence on issues like this.
And yet the people we have advising Presidents and Congress are not on our side. It's like letting coal barons run the EPA! The people who are supposed to stand between the people and the harmful effects of capitalism unrestrained are on the side of the robber barons, and we have no champions.
I don't understand financial markets nearly enough to comment on what specific regulations are or or not appropriate. But I can sure as hell see that we have a completely bass-ackwards set of incentives going on at the top levels. When the Fed and other entities that are supposed to help regulate American commerce and monetary policy are all run by the very investment bankers that those entities are intended to regulate, there is a problem.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 168 by hooah212002, posted 04-04-2011 9:36 AM hooah212002 has seen this message but not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9973
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.7


Message 170 of 440 (610983)
04-04-2011 1:22 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by marc9000
04-02-2011 9:46 PM


Why does the middle class need help (government help) today?
That is a completely separate question from "Are they getting help?".
So, are Republican policies helping the middle class or not?
It trickles down. That phrase has been made to sound evil by the left/Democrats/liberals, but it works.
How has it worked? From what I have seen, middle class incomes are losing ground to the cost of living.
There’s no evidence that increasing taxes/social programs, government impositions on private business, special rights for labor unions, and erosions of morality help anything in the long run.
Stronger labor unions in the middle of the 20th century led to a surge in middle class incomes. Social programs such as single payer healthcare has led to major reductions in cost for the middle class in other countries. So why can't we have stronger unions and single payer health coverage?
The EPA has possibly done more to destroy the middle class than any other single thing in the U.S. It imposes regulation that someone has to pay for, and the middle class always gets the bill. It destroys business, large and small, putting the middle class out of work.
So please tell me how unregulated polluting helps the middle class.
It really shouldn’t be thought of as laws and reforms by Republicans, it should be thought of as an undoing of failed laws and reforms put in place by Democrats in the past, most of it the very recent past.
So what laws and reforms are Republicans going to put in that would benefit the middle class? What is the Republican plan for making health care affordable for the middle class?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by marc9000, posted 04-02-2011 9:46 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 174 by marc9000, posted 04-04-2011 8:04 PM Taq has replied

  
ramoss
Member (Idle past 612 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 171 of 440 (611002)
04-04-2011 3:40 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by jar
04-03-2011 10:13 AM


Re: The GOP
In other words, you are a Barry Goldwater conservative.. Not a modern one.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by jar, posted 04-03-2011 10:13 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 172 by jar, posted 04-04-2011 3:47 PM ramoss has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 172 of 440 (611003)
04-04-2011 3:47 PM
Reply to: Message 171 by ramoss
04-04-2011 3:40 PM


Re: The GOP
Certainly far closer to Goldwater than any current ones but more between AuH2O and Nelson Rockefeller. I imagine either would be considered as far left these days.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by ramoss, posted 04-04-2011 3:40 PM ramoss has not replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 173 of 440 (611025)
04-04-2011 7:53 PM


REPLY TO MESSAGE 158
hooah212002 writes:
You don't know what NPR is, do you? How does one "watch" NPR?
Haha, my mistake. Public radio / public television, it all tends to run together with me. Both liberal, both taxpayer supported. I actually seriously doubt I’ll ever have the stomach to pay any attention to either one. Michelle Bachman being on NPR does fascinate me however.
MESSAGE 159
crashfrog writes:
marc9000 writes:
You’d have to explain more thoroughly what you mean by trickle up.
A transfer of wealth from the middle class to the rich. You know, that income redistribution conservatives are always on about.
That’s called free markets. If you don’t know the difference between free markets and government mandated income redistribution, I have about as much time for you as I do for property renters who know or care nothing about liberty.
No, I am referring to usable products and services, the kind people willingly pay for. It's the middle class who are primarily engaged in the production of such goods and services. The productivity of the rich is incredibly low because they're fundamentally not engaged in the production of useful goods and services; they're predominantly engaged in finance, which largely transfers wealth from the middle class to the wealthy.
An owner of a plumbing company, or trucking company, with 5 to 10 employess, often falls into the rich classification as set by Democrats. This type of rich person is very much engaged in the production of goods and services, and often has more headaches and risks involved in what he does in one day, than his employees have in a year. If government, or jealous voters believe they know enough about him to help decide how much of his money he can part with to prop up other members of society, he doesn’t have much life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.
I know or care little about finance. But I’m not jealous of those who are successful at it. They live much riskier lives than government bureaucrats.
No, it's a genuine question I'm asking you about how you square your belief in property rights with your belief that industrial corporations have an untrammeled right to deposit unwanted garbage and pollution in air and water you own.
I don’t have that belief, you build straw men.
It's a real question. I'm completely serious about it and I'd like an answer - how do you square those completely contradictory positions? If I own some water and some air, how on Earth could it be "property rights" for someone with no claim to that water or air to deposit pollutants in it? Property rights would be my right to restrain someone from doing so, not their nonexistent right to do so.
I believe private interaction in free markets and free society, with a reasonable legal system, reign in property disputes far better than a self serving government bureaucracy. That’s a real answer.
crashfrog writes:
marc9000 writes:
Ever hear the phrase, “give me liberty or give me death”?
Commonly attributed to Patrick Henry. Do you think Patrick Henry was referring to an untrammeled right to deposit garbage and pollution on other people's land, water, and air? Could you identify the Constitutional amendment that grants that right? Please be specific.
I can identify a couple of lines from the Declaration of Independence, which describe the actions of the British Crown that he was referring to. To quote;
quote:
He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people and eat out their substance
For suspending our own legislatures, and declaring themselves
invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever
It’s amazing that today’s EPA was so clearly defined back in 1776. It was almost like the U.S. founders knew something about human nature, about tyrants, about the fragility of liberty.
crashfrog writes:
marc9000 writes:
In the 1970’s before the EPA was 10 years old, it shut down a U.S. Steel plant in Gary Indiana, putting those steel employees out of work.
Were the people who ran that steel mill stealing access to other people's land, water, and air, and depositing unwanted pollution and garbage there?
No. They were doing things the way they always did them. The EPA imposed NEW, more stringent regulations, that U.S. Steel found impossible to quickly meet. It wasn’t permanently closed, but it was closed temporarily. Until U.S. Steel finally met them (with their customers footing the bill) or until the union came on too strong, or until the briefcase filled with cash was handed from the proper person to the proper person.
As a matter of fact, that's exactly what they were doing.
How do you know that - do you have something on-line you can prove that with? A quick search didn't turn anything up for me, I'm just going by memory of about 35 years.
It's unfortunate for the people who worked there, but they were engaged unwittingly in a conspiracy to violate people's property rights. And aren't property rights pretty important? You keep asking people if they own property, so I must assume you consider property rights of utmost importance. Am I wrong about that? Please advise.
Property rights yes, conspiracy theories about industrial pollution, not so much.
MESSAGE 165
Theodoric writes:
Are you fucking serious?
I AM serious, and don’t call me Shirley. I also have little time for those who can’t express themselves without middle school playground talk.
You right wing elitists. You think people that don't own property are not actual member of your society?
No. I just said that I don’t care to have a discussion with them at this time. I also don’t desire a discussion with a new mom on the details of diaper changing. I also don’t desire a discussion with a Wall Street Financial guy about the stock market reports on the Dow Jones big board bulls and bears, whatever that is. It doesn’t mean I don’t consider them a member of my society. I just don’t desire a discussion with them. Given the incredible ignorance in this thread of a wariness of tyranny, the fragility of liberty, etc, I was just thinking I could awaken a thinking process of a property owner who, by some miracle, hasn’t yet had to deal with property taxes, zoning ordinances, building permits, building setbacks, eminent domain, legal issues, jealous neighbors, and other things associated with owning property.
MESSAGE 166
Dr Adequate writes:
Then you'd have had little time to discuss liberty with Patrick Henry when he was Governor of Virginia, and to explain to him that he should have cried: "Give me liberty or give me rented accommodation!"
You'd have had little time to discuss liberty with George Washington when he rented his Valley Forge headquarters during the War of Independence, nor when he rented Mount Vernon from his half-brother's widow.
You'd have had little time to discuss liberty with Thomas Jefferson when, living in rented rooms, he wrote the Declaration of Independence.
Fortunately, it seems that they could all do quite well without your advice on that subject.
They really could do quite well, because I’d bet that not a single one of them expected any of their routine living expenses to paid for by someone else. That’s what would make them completely different from most renters that are using vulgar language on a political thread on a scientific forum.
MESSAGE 167
bluescat48 writes:
Obviously, these right-wing extremists believe in 2 classes, themselves (aristocrats) and the rest of us (serfs or slaves).
What's the difference in that and left wing extremists who believe in 2 classes, one that's "rich" and therefore should be taxed in a different classification to support the other class?

Replies to this message:
 Message 175 by crashfrog, posted 04-04-2011 8:25 PM marc9000 has replied
 Message 176 by Theodoric, posted 04-04-2011 8:40 PM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 177 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-04-2011 9:34 PM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 182 by hooah212002, posted 04-04-2011 11:21 PM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 190 by Jon, posted 04-05-2011 12:52 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 174 of 440 (611032)
04-04-2011 8:04 PM
Reply to: Message 170 by Taq
04-04-2011 1:22 PM


That is a completely separate question from "Are they getting help?".
Fair enough.
So, are Republican policies helping the middle class or not?
Yes. By slowing down the socialist policies of the Democrats.
marc9000 writes:
It trickles down. That phrase has been made to sound evil by the left/Democrats/liberals, but it works.
How has it worked? From what I have seen, middle class incomes are losing ground to the cost of living.
There have been problems, mainly concerning health care (which I’ll get to), but overall it’s worked fairly well. 50 years ago, many homes in the U.S. didn’t have a television, most driveways only had one car. Statistics show that the poor in the U.S. have it pretty good, compared to the poor in other countries. Or it could be compared to 100 years ago in the U.S. — many/most poor families in the U.S. today have it better than upper middle class families had it back then.
Stronger labor unions in the middle of the 20th century led to a surge in middle class incomes. Social programs such as single payer healthcare has led to major reductions in cost for the middle class in other countries. So why can't we have stronger unions and single payer health coverage?
Because a lot of people in the U.S. don’t agree that all the details involved in those things works out for the better in the long run. If middle class living in other countries looks attractive to those on the left in the U.S., we should be seeing a mass exodus in emigration to those countries. It’s not happening.
So please tell me how unregulated polluting helps the middle class.
It keeps them from having to foot the staggering bill for all the unnecessary regulation that’s going on today. The auto emissions testing in my area from 1990 to 94 (or 95, whenever it ended) was nothing but a multi million dollar waste. Like any government bureaucracy, the EPA doesn’t seem to be accountable for its mistakes.
Forbidden
So what laws and reforms are Republicans going to put in that would benefit the middle class?
Probably the biggest thing is to try to do something about the unsustainable debt that the Democrats continue to build. Someday the middle class is going to have to pay the fiddler.
What is the Republican plan for making health care affordable for the middle class?
I don’t know, I don't think they have any magic answers for it. The mess didn’t happen overnight, and it won’t be solved overnight. Did you know that in the 60’s or 70’s, it was not uncommon for just about anyone at any education level to get a job, and automatically have his wife and all 6, 9 or 12 children fully covered? Why not today? I’ll start at the beginning;
Much of medical research and development, isn’t, and never has been, a simple producer/buyer transaction. That’s because it involves procedures for treating catastrophic medical issues, the types of issues that people don’t expect or see coming, and certainly don’t have enough money laying around to pay for. That was the reason they had insurance, and in the 50’s and 60’s the procedures were limited enough and defined enough so that the insurance system worked, with little strain on those paying the premiums. But medical research and development never stops, in spite of the fact that there is no demand for it, from anyone able to pay the bill, yet it always must be paid for. In addition to looking for new cures for cancer, heart disease, etc., the technology arrived for cosmetic, and morally troubling medical procedures. (transplanting baboon hearts to humans, etc.) Insurance companies, like any business, will pay for anything, as long as it makes it possible for them to recover that money plus more, with new sales. So in the early 1980’s HMO’s were born! You’re health must be maintained — you’re like a car — you’re oil must be changed! You need to go to the doctor every few months, open your mouth and say ahhh, take your temperature, and WHAM, you’re fine, out the door, that will be $75! But no worries, your insurance company will pay $70, we only need a $5 co-pay from you, and you got to sit in our waiting room all day rather than work at your job! Your employer will pay you for it! It worked for a while, but when the bills started really coming in to the insurance companies, guess what they did with their premiums. Even before the HMO farce got started, insurance companies, and any company offering benefits to employees, often through unions, were beginning to see a benefit to them if they started experimenting with paying some of their customers/employees routine living expenses. That’s something that goes against the spirit of U.S. foundings, for citizens to have any routine living expenses to be paid for by someone else. It was practically unheard of for the first 100 to 150 years of U.S. existence, and today it’s practically a way of life, a way of thinking, for huge blocks of voters. Today it’s routine for many people to expect breast enlargements, birth control pills, Viagra, a prescription for a cold, or a $5000 power chair to be paid for by someone else. Who else? Most of them don’t know and don’t care. Who should pay for it? The top 5%? Or the middle class? Who is actually paying for it? I currently pay $175 a month for a really lousy medical plan. I think I can guess where a lot of that $175 goes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by Taq, posted 04-04-2011 1:22 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 189 by Taq, posted 04-05-2011 11:57 AM marc9000 has replied
 Message 191 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-05-2011 1:10 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 175 of 440 (611035)
04-04-2011 8:25 PM
Reply to: Message 173 by marc9000
04-04-2011 7:53 PM


That’s called free markets.
LOL! As if.
An owner of a plumbing company, or trucking company, with 5 to 10 employess, often falls into the rich classification as set by Democrats.
Relatively few small business owners are actually rich, which is why Republican policies are so universally punitive against small business owners. The average small business owner's yearly income is usually well under $40,000 (that's the national average "Self-employment income" according to self-employed people's taxes.) But in point of fact, the owner of a plumbing company isn't providing any plumbing, usually; his employees are doing that. The owner of a sandwich shop usually isn't making the sandwiches.
When we're talking about services that people want and goods that people want to buy, the people whose hands are producing them are invariably in the middle class, not the rich.
I know or care little about finance.
Sounds like something a renter would say.
I don’t have that belief, you build straw men.
No, I don't. You're on the record as opposing the legitimacy of government regulation meant to regulate the deposit of garbage and pollution into other people's land, air, and water.
I'm asking you how you square that with a belief in property rights. Since you refuse to answer, I can only conclude that you're some kind of socialist who believes that all property - all land, all air, all water - are held communally, and anybody can do whatever they want on anybody else's property.
I believe private interaction in free markets and free society, with a reasonable legal system, reign in property disputes far better than a self serving government bureaucracy.
Certainly a "reasonable legal system" pursues cases against people who are criminally violating property rights. You can't simultaneously believe that property disputes are always and only a civil matter and also believe in property rights, because one of the crucial rights of a property owner is the legal protection of his property under law. If you believe that property problems are always and only civil, you don't actually believe in property rights, because the violation of someone's rights is always a criminal matter. That's what rights are.
No. They were doing things the way they always did them.
That's not a "no" if they were always depositing garbage and pollution on property they had no legal right to.
The EPA imposed NEW, more stringent regulations, that U.S. Steel found impossible to quickly meet.
It's too bad they were engaged in a criminal enterprise to violate other people's property rights, but the defense that they couldn't quickly stop violating the law isn't much of a defense. A career car thief doesn't have a defense that he can't "quickly meet" his responsibility to stop stealing cars, and US Steel can't defend their criminal enterprise by asserting that they couldn't quickly stop breaking the law. That's the addict's defense.
Property rights yes, conspiracy theories about industrial pollution, not so much.
Conspiracy theories? Now you're outright denying that any US corporation has ever violated property rights by dumping pollution and garbage on land they didn't own?
I dunno, sounds like some kind of commie nonsense to me.
They really could do quite well, because I’d bet that not a single one of them expected any of their routine living expenses to paid for by someone else.
You realize you're talking about people who made a living off the labor of human beings they owned, right? Do you think very hard before you post, Marc? Thomas Jefferson owned slaves, stupid!
Edited by crashfrog, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by marc9000, posted 04-04-2011 7:53 PM marc9000 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 178 by marc9000, posted 04-04-2011 9:51 PM crashfrog has replied

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 176 of 440 (611038)
04-04-2011 8:40 PM
Reply to: Message 173 by marc9000
04-04-2011 7:53 PM


The EPA imposed NEW, more stringent regulations, that U.S. Steel found impossible to quickly meet. It wasn’t permanently closed, but it was closed temporarily. Until U.S. Steel finally met them (with their customers footing the bill) or until the union came on too strong, or until the briefcase filled with cash was handed from the proper person to the proper person.
Ha ha. More assertions with no evidence. I see you have changed your tune and now acknowledge that US Steel did not shutter the Gary plant. DO you know anything about this case and the pollution that was involved? You accuse the EPA of taking bribes but have no evidence. You might want to have some evidence before making such accusations.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by marc9000, posted 04-04-2011 7:53 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 177 of 440 (611044)
04-04-2011 9:34 PM
Reply to: Message 173 by marc9000
04-04-2011 7:53 PM


They really could do quite well, because I’d bet that not a single one of them expected any of their routine living expenses to paid for by someone else. That’s what would make them completely different from most renters that are using vulgar language on a political thread on a scientific forum.
Perhaps this would be a good time to point out that your self-serving fantasies about the opinions and/or socioeconomic status of the people who are disagreeing with you bear no relation to reality.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by marc9000, posted 04-04-2011 7:53 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
marc9000
Member
Posts: 1509
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009
Member Rating: 1.4


Message 178 of 440 (611046)
04-04-2011 9:51 PM
Reply to: Message 175 by crashfrog
04-04-2011 8:25 PM


You realize you're talking about people who made a living off the labor of human beings they owned, right? Do you think very hard before you post, Marc? Thomas Jefferson owned slaves, stupid!
And the crashfrog crashes, and all his little helpers here will give him a free pass of course. Owning slaves was a luxury for Jefferson, he wasn't using them to prop up a poor, desperate lifestyle! You're comparing Jefferson to today's handout seekers? Do you think before you call people names, o believer in free speech?
From here on I'm only replying to Taq in this thread - he seems to be the only one on the Democrat side that's interested in a meaningful discussion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by crashfrog, posted 04-04-2011 8:25 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 179 by jar, posted 04-04-2011 9:55 PM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 180 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-04-2011 10:03 PM marc9000 has not replied
 Message 181 by crashfrog, posted 04-04-2011 10:33 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 179 of 440 (611047)
04-04-2011 9:55 PM
Reply to: Message 178 by marc9000
04-04-2011 9:51 PM


marc9000 writes:
Owning slaves was a luxury for Jefferson, he wasn't using them to prop up a poor, desperate lifestyle!
Actually Jefferson was using slaves to prop up a pretty exalted and privileged position ... for Jefferson.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by marc9000, posted 04-04-2011 9:51 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 285 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 180 of 440 (611048)
04-04-2011 10:03 PM
Reply to: Message 178 by marc9000
04-04-2011 9:51 PM


Owning slaves was a luxury for Jefferson, he wasn't using them to prop up a poor, desperate lifestyle!
So, just to make this clear ... if someone "expects any of their routine living expenses to paid for by someone else", this is wrong only if these living expenses are extremely modest, but it's OK if it provides them with a life of luxury and ease?
You're comparing Jefferson to today's handout seekers?
Hmm, let's see. On the one hand, a slave-owner who exploits the people he owns to provide himself with a life of luxury, on the other hand, someone who having spent his life paying into the system expects that when he is in need he might get enough back to feed himself.
No, there's not really a moral equivalence, is there?
From here on I'm only replying to Taq in this thread ...
This will not, of course, prevent the rest of us from mocking you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by marc9000, posted 04-04-2011 9:51 PM marc9000 has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024